A question about a possible Korean War asset pack

[Beirut]

3 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Wow. You've really run out of anything even remotely resembling an actual relevant argument, haven't you?

Is it because you've finally understood that the problem isn't what you thought it was, but still need to get the last word in? Or is this the point where you were just trolling all along?

 

My argument is simple, straightforward, and factually correct: if you want it - buy it.

 

You guys are going page after page saying that paying for it isn't a problem... then pay for it and there is no problem. How can there be a problem if you can have the thing you want by paying for it at you admit that paying for it is not a problem? There is no problem. You can have the thing you want. How can you possibly find a problem with having the thing you want and getting it in a non-problematic way? You can have the thing, there's no problem.

 

I mean, do you want the module delivered with candy and flowers? A stripper? What else beyond having the thing you want is involved in you having the thing you want?

[Tippis]

10 minutes ago, Beirut said:

My argument is simple, straightforward, and factually correct: if you want it - buy it.

Your “argument” is therefore irrelevant to the topic at hand.

10 minutes ago, Beirut said:

You guys are going page after page saying that paying for it isn't a problem.

Good. You've caught on to that much at least. So why are you going page after page suggesting that paying for it will solve the problem when you've been told, page after page, that it's not a factor?

10 minutes ago, Beirut said:

How can there be a problem if you can have the thing you want by paying for it

Because problems can exist that are not related to paying for it or not.
Problems can also exist that are not about wanting something.

But more importantly, you have yet to show any evidence of what it is that we supposedly want. Could you clarify what you think it is, please? Because every indication points to it not being what you have convinced yourself it is…

10 minutes ago, Beirut said:

There is no problem.

Yes there is. It's just not the problem you so desperately wish it to be so you can bandy about your neat catch phrase. If you drop that need and drop what can be now only be classified as a wilful and deliberate unwillingness to grasp what the problem is, then maybe you can actually start having some input of value in the discussion. Maybe you can even formulate an argument against a solution that improves everything for everyone.

10 minutes ago, Beirut said:

I mean, do you want the module delivered with candy and flowers? A stripper? What else beyond having the thing you want is involved in you having the thing you want?II

What's being asked for has been very clearly and repeatedly stated. If you have to come up with this laughable nonsense just to try to keep up the illusion that you have anything to say, then maybe it's about time you stop trolling…

Edited February 23, 2022 by Tippis

[Beirut]

Just now, Tippis said:

Your argument is therefore irrelevant to the topic at hand.

So why are you going page after page suggesting that paying for it will solve the problem?

Because problems can exist that are not related to paying for it or not.
Problems can also exist that are not about wanting something.

But more importantly, you have yet to show any evidence of what it is that we supposedly want. Could you clarify what you think it is, please? Because every indication points to it not being what you have convinced yourself it is…

Yes there is. It's just not the problem you so desperately wish it to be so you can bandy about your neat catch phrase. If you drop that need and drop what can be now only be classified as a wilful and deliberate unwillingness to grasp what the problem is, then maybe you can actually start having some input of value in the discussion.

What is being asked for has been very clearly and repeatedly stated. If you have to come up with this laughable nonsense just to try to keep up the illusion that you have anything to say, then maybe it's about time you stop trolling…

 

Right off the bat, accusations of trolling are cowardice. if you can't handle words, then don't read. That's a you problem.

 

Beyond that, this is surreal. A module that can be had for $15 on sale, and there are frequent sales, is being made out to be the dinosaur killer of flightsim asteroids.

 

 

You pay for your stuff. It's what grownups do.

[Tippis]

Just now, Beirut said:

Right off the bat, accusations of trolling are cowardice.

Dawww… So how about it? Would you like to contribute an actual argument that is relevant to the topic at hand, or do you want to keep piling on the laughable nonsense just to try to get the last word in, thereby acting like nothing more than a troll?

Just now, Beirut said:

Beyond that, this is surreal.

Again, it is only surreal because you keep clinging to the notion that the problem is in any way, shape, or form related to paying for a module or not in spite of being told repeatedly that the problem in no way, shape or form is related to paying for a module or not, but rather is something completely unrelated.

Something different that I asked you to state, for the sake of clarity, so we're sure we're on the same page.

Something you seemingly couldn't — or wouldn't — clarify, for whatever reason…

[Grievo]

5 hours ago, M1Combat said:

Wow.

I mean I can't explain it better than Tippis.

Then perhaps the issue isn’t the clarity of the point, just that we don’t agree with the point you're making. 

[Callsign112]

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

The solution to the asset pack is to implement it in such a way such that owners and non-owners can play on the same server - like every other module apart from maps.

You can still have payware asset packs and have them not split up multiplayer - again, every other module does

 

Perhaps it could be done such that assets are only visible to non-owners (even at a reduced level of detail) in MP missions (with perhaps no CA functionality) - requiring only that the host purchase the pack.

But make it so that the asset pack is unavailable for their own missions, and SP missions using the asset pack are unavailable.

 

 

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

No it isn't, the analogy isn't even comparable, it kinda sounds like you don't understand the problem at all.

This analogy could apply to every aircraft module (because they can still eat lunch together even if one doesn't order fries, much in the same way that people can fly together even if they don't all own the same modules), but it doesn't apply to the asset pack.

For the asset pack it's more that 4 guys are trying to have lunch, but one of them didn't order fries so he's prohibited from having lunch with the other 3.

There's quite a distinction there...

 

@Northstar98, normally I am pretty impressed with your contributions on this forum, but I have to say I think you slipping a little here pal. The entire argument about the assets pack splitting the community is IMO extremely weak, and the argument being presented here in its support seems to have run out of both logic and steam. It seems to be digressing into what a group of people think a companies stance should be concerning its business model more than anything else.

You on the other hand make a very good point, although I think you are missing a very important piece of the puzzle. That being the reason why you can fly on the same server with aircraft you don't own, but you cant do that with maps/assets.

The reason is VALUE. If you stop for a moment to consider the value of the things your comparing, I think things will clear up a bunch for you.

The value of a plane/jet/helicopter module isn't in seeing one fly by, its in being in it as it flies by something. The value of a map is obviously the world it creates for you to fly around in and experience. And the value of an asset is to be able to interact/see it as you fly around in the world the map created.

Its a little like going to the movies. The value of popcorn gets extracted as you munch. But if you were able to see the movie without paying to watch it, you would basically be building a business model that would put movie theaters permanently out of operation. 

So there would be very little value for a company like ED to produce assets that everyone could see/interact with, but don't have to pay for.

TBH, ED could really solve this if they wanted to spend the time doing it. I don't recommend they do considering everything else that needs to be done. But what they could do is as you suggest, allow everyone to join the server, but only asset owners could interact with and see the asset detail. Non-owners would see a block that they could shoot at, but would have no damage model/interaction what so ever. Then and only then would the crowd blaming the assets pack for the very thing they are responsible for would see the value in buying the pack for $15. All owners would get the satisfaction of seeing their target being destroyed as their rounds zero in. That would be fair. Every on could be on the same server, the only difference is you get what you pay for.

At the end of the day, no one I am sure wants to see the community divided. Its is up to each individual to decide what they want to purchase and use.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Callsign112

[Northstar98]

Just now, Grievo said:

Then perhaps the issue isn’t the clarity of the point, just that we don’t agree with the point you're making. 

How can you lot not agree with the point we're making, when you don't even acknowledge the point we're making?

[M1Combat]

"You pay for your stuff. It's what grownups do."

And sometimes (clearly not always) grownups think about their arguments and change their minds when they're wrong.  But not always.

 

"You guys are going page after page saying that paying for it isn't a problem... then pay for it and there is no problem."

We've clearly stated and explained that "paying for it" is not the problem.  I'm sorry you're not capable of seeing this.

 

Well...  You are actually.  I know you are.  You wouldn't be anywhere near combat flight sims if you weren't capable of seeing this problem.  You are trolling and/or being willfully ignorant.  

Hint...  They are basically the same thing.

[Beirut]

1 minute ago, Tippis said:

Dawww… So how about it? Would you like to contribute an actual argument that is relevant to the topic at hand, or do you want to keep piling on the laughable nonsense just to try to get the last word in, thereby acting like nothing more than a troll?

 

As stated, accusations of trolling are just cowardice. If you wish to play that card, that's a you problem.

 

1 minute ago, Tippis said:

Again, it is only surreal because you keep clinging to the notion that the problem is in any way, shape, or form related to paying for a module or not in spite of being told repeatedly that the problem in no way, shape or form is related to paying for a module or not, but rather is something completely unrelated.

Something different that I asked you to state, for the sake of clarity, so we're sure we're on the same page.

Something you seemingly couldn't — or wouldn't — clarify, for whatever reason…

 

The point is..... there is no problem. 

 

How can there be a problem if the thing you want can be had in a non-problematic way? 

 

The thing is available.

The thing is desired.

The thing can be purchased.

There is no problem purchasing the thing.

The thing is now yours.

There is no problem.

[M1Combat]

2 minutes ago, Grievo said:

Then perhaps the issue isn’t the clarity of the point, just that we don’t agree with the point you're making. 

Then present an argument that makes sense.

[Beirut]

3 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

Well...  You are actually.  I know you are.  You wouldn't be anywhere near combat flight sims if you weren't capable of seeing this problem.  You are trolling and/or being willfully ignorant.  

 

 

And I'll say it to you as well, accusations of trolling are just cowardice. When people read stuff they don't like or can't handle, they cry "trolling".

 

If you cannot handle words, then you should not be reading. 

 

And if you want DCS modules... pay for them. 

[M1Combat]

4 minutes ago, Beirut said:

The thing is available.

The thing is desired.

The thing can be purchased.

There is no problem purchasing the thing.

The thing is now yours.

There is no problem.

HAH...  

LOL.

This doesn't address the problem sir.  It doesn't even touch on it.  It only addresses the individual.  It's cool though.  I don't actually care if you see this my way.  I hope that ED does...  so the community doesn't get split six ways from Sunday...   but you...  I don't care.  Feel free to keep your head under that rock.  It's all good.  I tried.

 

1 minute ago, Beirut said:

 

And I'll say it to you as well, accusations of trolling are just cowardice. When people read stuff they don't like or can't handle, they cry "trolling".

 

If you cannot handle words, then you should not be reading. 

 

And if you want DCS modules... pay for them. 

So your assertion is that trolling doesn't exist either.

Rock

Head

[Beirut]

Just now, M1Combat said:

HAH...  

LOL.

This doesn't address the problem sir.  It doesn't even touch on it.  It only addresses the individual.  It's cool though.  I don't actually care if you see this my way.  I hope that ED does...  so the community doesn't get split six ways from Sunday...   but you...  I don't care.  Feel free to keep your head under that rock.  It's all good.  I tried.

 

 

As stated, if a $15 module splits the community, then the community is already broken.

[Callsign112]

4 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

"You pay for your stuff. It's what grownups do."

And sometimes (clearly not always) grownups think about their arguments and change their minds when they're wrong.  But not always.

 

"You guys are going page after page saying that paying for it isn't a problem... then pay for it and there is no problem."

We've clearly stated and explained that "paying for it" is not the problem.  I'm sorry you're not capable of seeing this.

 

Well...  You are actually.  I know you are.  You wouldn't be anywhere near combat flight sims if you weren't capable of seeing this problem.  You are trolling and/or being willfully ignorant.  

Hint...  They are basically the same thing.

Your point is well made. I don't think there is any value in repeating it over and over again along side you.

What you seem to be missing is that if paying for it isn't the problem, then the follow-through logic would be that everyone would own it.... hence no problem. That is clearly not the case.

You keep repeating that buying the assets pack is not the problem, but you seem to be missing the fact that your argument is built around a group of people that haven't purchased it.

[Beirut]

3 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

 

What you seem to be missing is that if paying for it isn't the problem, then the follow-through logic would be that everyone would own it.... hence no problem. That is clearly not the case.

 

Exactly!

[Northstar98]

20 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

 

@Northstar98, normally I am pretty impressed with your contributions on this forum, but I have to say I think you slipping a little here pal.

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I really don't see how I'm the one slipping, just because I'm arguing for something you disagree with.

And I don't see how it's my fault that people continuously fail to see the point.

I've tried bold, italics, huge fonts - what more can I do?

20 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

The entire argument about the assets pack splitting the community is IMO extremely weak

How, exactly, is it weak?

I can give you examples (including just assets, and even whole maps) where steps have been taken with payware content in order to not split the community up.

The content doesn't split the MP community up, while being payware and having the incentive to purchase it.

20 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

, and the argument being presented here in its support seems to have run out of both logic and steam.

The logic is very simple, and it's logic echoed in numerous examples, not limited to DCS either.

The only reason the logic is being lost, is because its demonstrably not being recognised, over and over and over again. It isn't even acknowledged, people just quote mine "it being payware isn't the problem" and then ignore what the actual problem is, and why it doesn't necessarily follow from the asset pack being paid.

Though at least you've taken some effort to acknowledging it, so props for that.

20 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

It seems to be digressing into what a group of people think a companies stance should be concerning its business model more than anything else.

No it isn't, at all.

It has nothing to do with the asset pack merely being paid. I'm perfectly okay with paying for the asset pack, which should be evidenced by the fact that I own it.

It has everything to do with splitting the MP community up, something that doesn't necessarily follow from it merely being paid.

20 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

You on the other hand make a very good point, although I think you are missing a very important piece of the puzzle. That being the reason why you can fly on the same server with aircraft you don't own, but you cant do that with maps/assets.

The reason is VALUE. If you stop for a moment to consider the value of the things your comparing, I think things will clear up a bunch for you.

The value of a plane/jet/helicopter module isn't in seeing one fly by, its in being in it as it flies by something. The value of a map is obviously the world it creates for you to fly around in and experience. And the value of an asset is to be able to interact/see it as you fly around in the world the map created.

This is something I have already addressed.

And what I and a few others are suggesting has already been done for payware assets and maps, just not in DCS.

20 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

Its a little like going to the movies. The value of popcorn gets extracted as you munch. But if you were able to see the movie without paying to watch it, you would basically be building a business model that would put movie theaters permanently out of operation. 

The analogy is more you're going into the cinema to see a movie (just like you're entering a server to fly a mission).

Some of the people have also bought popcorn, but you haven't, leading to you being prohibited from watching the movie. So far I haven't run into a single movie theatre that behaves like this...

20 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

So there would be very little value for a company like ED to produce assets that everyone could see/interact with, but don't have to pay for.

But that isn't being suggested...

Having units that are of much lower detail is only 1 solution, it isn't the only one, such as having existing free models be a placeholder.

And even if you went down this route, I only suggested that they be depicted at a much lower level of detail (even if this was just a cuboid of the right footprint), only in MP servers.

20 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

TBH, ED could really solve this if they wanted to spend the time doing it. I don't recommend they do considering everything else that needs to be done. But what they could do is as you suggest, allow everyone to join the server, but only asset owners could interact with and see the asset detail.

This is already facilitated through the use of LODs that already exist.

But again, it isn't the only solution.

20 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

Non-owners would see a block that they could shoot at, but would have no damage model/interaction what so ever. Then and only then would the crowd blaming the assets pack for the very thing they are responsible for would see the value in buying the it for $15. All owners would get the satisfaction of seeing their target being destroyed as their rounds zero in. That would be fair. Every on could be on the same server, the only difference is you get what you pay for.

It doesn't matter which way you go about it - the only thing being asked for is that it not split the community up, while still providing an incentive to purchase it.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Northstar98

[Beirut]

There's a problem

What?

I want that thing

Okay, can you pay for it?

Yes

Is paying for it a problem?

No

Okay, you can have it whenever you like

Okay

So everything is okay now?

No

What's the problem

I want that thing

But you can buy it whenever you like

Yes

And you say paying for it isn't a problem

Right

So you can have it right now if you want

Good

So everything is okay

No

What's the problem?

I want that thing

 

[Tippis]

Just now, Beirut said:

As stated, accusations of trolling are just cowardice.

Dawww… So how about it? Would you like to contribute an actual argument that is relevant to the topic at hand, or do you want to keep piling on the laughable nonsense just to try to get the last word in, thereby acting like nothing more than a troll?

Just now, Beirut said:

The point is..... there is no problem. 

No, the point is that I asked you to clarify what you think it is that we want. You keep repeating that whole “if you want it, buy it” but you have not shown any evidence of understanding what it is we want.

There is a problem — just not the one your proposed solution supposedly solves. What the problem is has been explained to you in full, and you have not actually addressed what is being said. Instead, you have just kept repeating the same irrelevant catchphrase related to a non-issue, and then acted confused when told that the non-issue is not the issue.

That's the other point: if you can't in good faith demonstrate that you've understood what the stated problem is and how it differs from the unrelated non-problem you keep offering your non-solution to, then your entire line of “argumentation” misses the mark. You say that the problem we say exist does not exist. Prove it. Address the actual problem we're describing and show how it not actually how the game works.

Just now, Beirut said:

How can there be a problem if the thing you want can be had in a non-problematic way? 

This has already been answered. Repeating the question does not change the answer. Moreover, you have yet to demonstrate that you even understand what it is we want. So, again, could you please do that?

Just now, Beirut said:

The thing is available.

The thing is desired.

The thing can be purchased.

There is no problem purchasing the thing.

The thing is now yours.

There is no problem.

No, no,  no, no, no, and no, in roughly that order. Why that is has been explained in full.

3 minutes ago, Beirut said:

As stated, if a $15 module splits the community, then the community is already broken.

No. We know this for a fact because we have modules far more expensive than that that don't split the community — the price of the module is not a factor. This has been explained in full.

 

5 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

What you seem to be missing is that if paying for it isn't the problem, then the follow-through logic would be that everyone would own it..

That does not follow. In large part because that's not how DCS and its modules, and the market surrounding them, work.

Lots of people don't have lots of modules, in spite of their price not being what causes them not to buy them. They don't have them because they don't want them and because not wanting something is not a hindrance to playing the game. Except in one case, where if you don't want something, you are suddenly not allowed to participate for no good reason (since we know that this restriction is entirely artificial and arbitrary). Your logic only applies to people who are paying for it already and guess what, they do own it. By definition. But the problem arises with those who aren't and with the artificiality and arbitrariness of the restriction this creates, and — perhaps more importantly — with those who have to deal with (by avoiding) those restrictions.

2 minutes ago, Beirut said:

There's a problem

What?

I want that thing

No. That is not the problem. This is why you keep getting confused.

 

[Grievo]

26 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

How can you lot not agree with the point we're making, when you don't even acknowledge the point we're making?

I have. You believe that having an asset pack as a separate "module" splits the community, and that this is a problem. I disagree. 

25 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

Then present an argument that makes sense.

Comments such as this, dripping with condescension and arrogance, are probably why the only people who agree with you now, are the ones who agreed with you before they read any of your comments. I'm not interested in changing your mind. I don't know you, your esteem and opinion have less value to me than an asset pack. ED seems to agree with what I'm saying. Rail against asset packs all you like. Best of luck.

[Northstar98]

5 minutes ago, Beirut said:

There's a problem

What?

I want that thing

Okay, can you pay for it?

Yes

Is paying for it a problem?

No

Okay, you can have it whenever you like

Okay

So everything is okay now?

No

What's the problem

I want that thing

But you can buy it whenever you like

Yes

And you say paying for it isn't a problem

Right

So you can have it right now if you want

Good

So everything is okay

No

What's the problem?

I want that thing

 

But what if people don't want the asset pack (for whatever reason), but wish to play on a server with it?

I imagine most people aren't particularly interested in the Yak-52 (it certainly seems that way), but if they don't own it, they can still join a server with it present, they can even join a server if it's the only thing present...

[Tippis]

Just now, Grievo said:

I have. You believe that having an asset pack as a separate "module" splits the community, and that this is a problem. I disagree. 

With which part?

That it splits the community is pretty much an undeniable fact — indeed, that's the very function and intent of of the restriction.

What's your reasoning for not considering this a problem?

[Beirut]

3 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Dawww… So how about it? Would you like to contribute an actual argument that is relevant to the topic at hand, or do you want to keep piling on the laughable nonsense just to try to get the last word in, thereby acting like nothing more than a troll?

No, the point is that I asked you to clarify what you think it is that we want. You keep repeating that whole “if you want it, buy it” but you have not shown any evidence of understanding what it is we want.

There is a problem — just not the one your proposed solution supposedly solves. What the problem is has been explained to you in full, and you have not actually addressed what is being said. Instead, you have just kept repeating the same irrelevant catchphrase related to a non-issue, and then acted confused when told that the non-issue is not the issue.

That's the other point: if you can't in good faith demonstrate that you've understood what the stated problem is and how it differs from the unrelated non-problem you keep offering your non-solution to, then your entire line of “argumentation” misses the mark. You say that the problem we say exist does not exist. Prove it. Address the actual problem we're describing and show how it not actually how the game works.

This has already been answered. Repeating the question does not change the answer. Moreover, you have yet to demonstrate that you even understand what it is we want. So, again, could you please do that?

No, no,  no, no, no, and no, in roughly that order. Why that is has been explained in full.

No. We know this for a fact because we have modules far more expensive than that that don't split the community — the price of the module is not a factor. This has been explained in full.

 

That does not follow. In large part because that's not how DCS and its modules, and the market surrounding them, work.

Lots of people don't have lots of modules, in spite of their price not being what causes them not to buy them. They don't have them because they don't want them and because not wanting something is not a hindrance to playing the game. Except in one case, where if you don't want something, you are suddenly not allowed to participate for no good reason (since we know that this restriction is entirely artificial and arbitrary). Your logic only applies to people who are paying for it already and guess what, they do own it. By definition. But the problem arises with those who aren't and with the artificiality and arbitrariness of the restriction this creates, and — perhaps more importantly — with those who have to deal with (by avoiding) those restrictions.

No. That is not the problem. This is why you keep getting confused.

 

 

It's not confusing at all. You guys are saying that the problem is that you can have what you want and you're happy to pay for it.

 

What on Earth is weird about that?  

 

[Paganus]

The one fact that you guys pushing for no pay asset packs keep ignoring is maps! If you really believe the asset pack divides the online community then you should be equally if not more against new pay maps. Otherwise your argument is broken and irrelevant. 

[Beirut]

5 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

But what if people don't want the asset pack (for whatever reason), but wish to play on a server with it?

 

 

 

Then they can grow up, quit whining, and pay for their toys like everyone else. 

 

And if they think that's not fair, well, fair is back at their childhood home in a box under the bed with the LEGOs and colouring books.

[Tippis]

41 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

This doesn't address the problem sir.  It doesn't even touch on it.  It only addresses the individual.  It's cool though.  I don't actually care if you see this my way.  I hope that ED does...  so the community doesn't get split six ways from Sunday.

The good news is that every indication is that they do and that they've learned their lesson from the WWII pack when new assets were introduced.

 

13 minutes ago, Beirut said:

t's not confusing at all. You guys are saying that the problem is that you can have what you want

Nope. This is just you getting confused about what we want again. But that's good — it's exactly why I asked you to clarify what you believe we wanted.

It's not that. If you want to get a good understanding of what we want then, as mentioned, you need to dump your misapprehension that it's about buying things and instead actually read what people have been telling you. It has been stated very clearly, explicitly, with every conceivable emphasis. Relying on this tired and long disproven strawman you're clinging to will not help.

 

8 minutes ago, Beirut said:

Then they can grow up, quit whining, and pay for their toys like everyone else. 

But it's not their toys. That's a pretty key part of the problem.

 

9 minutes ago, Paganus said:

The one fact that you guys pushing for no pay asset packs keep ignoring is maps!

This has been addressed.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Tippis